Commit a021f6

2026-04-12 20:45:56 jeremy: Add C01-3 checkpoint proposal for Jeremy's review Proposed Checkpoint C criteria: milestones, sequencing, time allocations, dependencies, annotations, and artefact readiness. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

/dev/null .. SAT/C01-3-Checkpoint-Proposal.md
@@ 0,0 1,72 @@
+	# C01-3 Checkpoint Proposal: Annotated Plan Ready
+
+	**Status:** Proposal (pending Jeremy's approval)
+	**Created:** 2026-04-12
+	**Source:** TKT-006 --- C1-3 Assessment Package
+
+	---
+
+	## Checkpoint C: Annotated Plan Ready
+
+	This checkpoint gates C1-3 (10-minute Interview). A student who completes all items has a genuine, annotated project plan and can walk the teacher through their planning decisions. A student who hasn't completed the checkpoint spends interview time trying to reconstruct their reasoning --- naturally lower marks.
+
+	### Student Self-Check Criteria
+
+	Students can check each item themselves before the lesson:
+
+	1. **Milestones defined** --- Plan includes teacher-provided milestones (criterion due dates) AND at least 2 student-defined milestones (e.g., "Core features complete," "Beta-ready build"). Clearly marked on the Gantt chart.
+
+	2. **Task sequencing shown** --- Tasks are not a flat list. The order is intentional: tasks that depend on earlier tasks come after them. A reader can see why task X comes before task Y.
+
+	3. **Time allocations present** --- Every task has a start date and end date. Timeline is realistic --- not everything crammed into the last week.
+
+	4. **Dependencies identified** --- At least 2 dependencies are noted on the plan (annotated, colour-coded, or written next to tasks). A dependency means: "I cannot start task B until task A is finished."
+
+	5. **Annotations explaining choices** --- Plan has handwritten or digital annotations explaining _why_ things are structured this way. Not just labels --- reasoning.
+
+	6. **Artefact ready** --- Annotated plan is printed or saved on screen. Student can show it during the interview and point to specific parts.
+
+	### Teacher Quick Check (circulating, <60 seconds per student)
+
+	| Check | What to look for |
+	|-------|-----------------|
+	| Milestones | At least 3 visible (teacher due dates + student-defined). Prompt: "Where are _your_ milestones?" |
+	| Sequencing | Tasks ordered, not random. Dependencies marked or implied. |
+	| Annotations | Handwritten notes, highlights, arrows explaining choices. Not blank. |
+	| Quick verbal | "Point to a dependency and tell me what happens if the first task is late." |
+
+	### Feedback Prompts (done to strong)
+
+	| Area | Prompt |
+	|------|--------|
+	| No student milestones | "Where are _your_ milestones? What's a point where you'd stop and check progress?" |
+	| Flat task list | "Which task _must_ happen before which? Draw an arrow or write a note." |
+	| No annotations | "Why did you put data collection first? Write a note explaining your reasoning." |
+	| Unrealistic timeline | "3 days for development and 4 weeks for analysis --- does that match reality?" |
+	| No dependencies | "Which tasks can't start until another finishes? Find at least 2 and mark them." |
+	| Ready for depth | "Can you trace your critical path? That's what I'll ask about in the interview." |
+
+	---
+
+	## Proposed Checklist Integration
+
+	**Where:** C01-2026 checklist, under "Planning Detail (C1-3)" section, before the assessment tasks.
+
+	**Suggestion:** Group the existing learning tasks (add milestones/dependencies, "why monitor?" + peer review, annotate plan) under a "Checkpoint C tasks" heading. Add the self-check criteria above as the readiness gate before the interview.
+
+	**Additional learning task proposals:**
+	- **"Interview rehearsal"** --- Walk a partner through your annotated plan while they ask questions from a provided question list. 10 min timed. Direct practice for the interview.
+	- **"Dependency mapping"** --- For each dependency on your plan, write what happens if the predecessor is delayed. Builds genuine understanding for interview.
+
+	**Note:** The full assessment package (teacher protocol, question bank, scoring guide, worked examples) is in `SD26-Teachers/sat/C01-2026/C01-3-Assessment-Package.typ`. This wiki page covers only the checkpoint criteria suitable for the student-facing checklist.
+
+	---
+
+	## Key VCAA Rubric Points for C1-3
+
+	The VCAA rubric (Indicator 3) has two important thresholds:
+
+	- **7--8 threshold:** Student must explain _why_ the project needs to be monitored (project-specific, not generic) AND document student-provided milestones.
+	- **9--10 threshold:** Student must document dependencies and critical path AND _discuss how_ progress will be monitored and documented (tools, frequency, what they record).
+
+	Monitoring is the key differentiator. Without monitoring reasoning, a student caps at 6.